Researchers have discovered, for example, that young barn owls can be impressively generous toward one another, regularly donating portions of their food to smaller, hungrier siblings — a display of altruism that is thought to be rare among nonhuman animals, and one that many a small human sibling might envy.

The scientists also discovered that barn owls express their needs and desires to each other through a complex, rule-based series of calls, trills, barks and hoots, a language the researchers are now seeking to decipher.

“They talk all night long and make a huge noise,” said Alexandre Roulin of the University of Lausanne, who recently reported on barn owl altruism in the journal Animal Behaviour with his colleague Charlene A. Ruppli, and Arnaud Da Silva of the University of Burgundy.

Would that owls might lend us their ears. Species like the barn, barred, screech and horned have some of the keenest auditory systems known, able to hear potential prey stirring deep under leaves, snow or grass, identify the rodent species and even assess its relative plumpness or state of pregnancy, based on sound alone.

(ibid). Should teachers be allowed to teach this as a design or as the result of naturally selected dynamics?

A good deal of what is written here by Gene, Mespo, you, Mike and others is pretty good stuff.

Although you havent been posting much lately. Which is too bad. I always used to like watching you and Mespo “discuss” various topics. He with his Greek and you with your German interpretation of various issues.

RWL, LOL, If you think Mike can exercise any control over his thread- or any guest poster poster, or even the Professor, can exercise control over any thread they initiate on this blawg- you need to read more threads. Herding cats doesn’t even come close. :-)

]]>By: lottakatzhttp://jonathanturley.org/2013/02/23/evolution-religion-and-science/#comment-509473
Mon, 25 Feb 2013 23:23:47 +0000http://jonathanturley.org/?p=61036#comment-509473Bob, Esq.: “Again, can anyone here prove either the existence or non-existence of a ‘ghost in the machine’ responsible for our design?”
*
Not me. If you know the names of the Three Frogs of the Apocalypse you’re way more plugged into the mystical heart of the universe than I. :-)

I don’t know which one them this little guy is but I suspect that he IS one of them because the universe has a really twisted sense of humor- on that point I have faith. He looks like a Bertram to me.

]]>By: lottakatzhttp://jonathanturley.org/2013/02/23/evolution-religion-and-science/#comment-509470
Mon, 25 Feb 2013 23:07:40 +0000http://jonathanturley.org/?p=61036#comment-509470Blouise: “I am not the least bit uncomfortable with the mystical even though I have no idea how it works. Perhaps it is the profession I was in for so many years. Ask any musician who works in the classics, my favorites were Vivaldi, Verdi, and good ol’ Wolfgangus, about floating away into the unknown … trusting it and taking your audience with you.”
*

In that regard you have truly been a shaman- music is one of the sure-fire gateways to the mystical. I have seen people transfixed and even weeping due to the places music have taken them. In fact I was one of them!

I recall some years ago reading about a syndrome surprisingly common among tourists at museums in both France and Italy. People weep, or grow short of breath, or faint, (or some combination of those symptoms) and are overcome by emotion and confusion. Low blood sugar didn’t account for most of it.

Art is a gateway. It’s one of the reasons even an old fuddy-duddy like myself want it taught in schools. It has plenty of practical and beneficial reasons to make it part of any school curriculum but that’s not the best reason by half. It changes your mind and touches your soul.

Because some insist on seeing direction (and the ancillary intent and meaning) where there isn’t any would be my guess. That whole desire for completeness thing.

]]>By: Bob, Esq.http://jonathanturley.org/2013/02/23/evolution-religion-and-science/#comment-509464
Mon, 25 Feb 2013 22:51:40 +0000http://jonathanturley.org/?p=61036#comment-509464BTW, for those of you keeping score at home, the names of the three frogs of the apocalypse happen to be Murry, Bertrum and Stanley.

]]>By: Bob, Esq.http://jonathanturley.org/2013/02/23/evolution-religion-and-science/#comment-509455
Mon, 25 Feb 2013 22:41:45 +0000http://jonathanturley.org/?p=61036#comment-509455Again, can anyone here prove either the existence or non-existence of a ‘ghost in the machine’ responsible for our design?

are you saying that a virus is used in genetic engineering? I know they have tried to use them as vectors. They might even be able to use viral enzymes to manipulate DNA. Since a virus uses our DNA to replicate itself, it makes sense that if we could manufacture their enzymes we could use them for genetic engineering.

As you said above, this aint your grandfather’s biology, nor your fathers for that matter.

If I was a biologist working in genetics, I would do acid on a regular basis to free mind from conventional wisdom.

Which brings me to QM, maybe its very shy? When you look for it, it hides. I wonder if you hold your fingers in front of your eyes and look through the slits made by your fingers you could find a Quantum?

Microbe and germ are nonspecific terms that can mean different things to different people.

Microbe just means something microscopic, but is usually used as almost synonymous with germ.

Germ is a term usually restricted to any disease-causing agent, e.g. bacterium, protozoan or virus. (Bacterium is singular, bacteria is plural.)

Democrats … gotta luv ‘em.

BTW, what are your thoughts on quantum circumcision?

]]>By: Gene H.http://jonathanturley.org/2013/02/23/evolution-religion-and-science/#comment-509448
Mon, 25 Feb 2013 22:27:12 +0000http://jonathanturley.org/?p=61036#comment-509448Another interesting thing about viruses is that they don’t have a metabolism.

“A microorganism (from the Greek: μικρός, mikrós, “small” and ὀργανισμός, organismós, “organism”) or microbe is a microscopic organism that can be a single cell (unicellular), [1] or a multicellular organism. The study of microorganisms is called microbiology, a subject that began with Anton van Leeuwenhoek’s discovery of microorganisms in 1675, using a microscope of his own design.

Microorganisms are very diverse; they include all of the prokaryotes, namely the bacteria and archaea; and various forms of eukaryote, comprising the protozoa, fungi, algae, microscopic plants (green algae), and animals such as rotifers and planarians. Some microbiologists also classify viruses as microorganisms, but others consider these as nonliving.”

And if it doesn’t have a metabolism? It’s not alive. Only the wishful thinkers in the extremist “viruses are everything” camp think they are.

]]>By: Gene H.http://jonathanturley.org/2013/02/23/evolution-religion-and-science/#comment-509445
Mon, 25 Feb 2013 22:22:24 +0000http://jonathanturley.org/?p=61036#comment-509445BTW, your quote? Is also gibberish. “They include fungi, bacteria, viruses, archea and protists. All except fungi consist of a single cell, although microbe diversity is vast. Microbes are the causes of many disease…”

A microbe is an organism that can be seen using a microscope. They include fungi, bacteria, viruses, archea and protists. All except fungi consist of a single cell, although microbe diversity is vast. Microbes are the causes of many disease…

“Penrose believes that human consciousness is governed by quantum mechanics”

And he may be right, but including his statement is argument by non-sequitur.

“Mayr believes human consciousness is a fatal mutation”

And it may be, but so what? It’s an interesting mutation and even though our track record is short compared to the dinosaurs, I don’t think you can argue that intelligence is not a beneficial mutation at least in the short term (in terms of geological time)

“Löwdin explained how quantum mechanics are ‘unstable’ or contrary to our understanding of non-quantum objects, and therefore make human DNA functions somewhat unstable.”

“non-quantum objects”:

Really.

Show me something without any gluons and I’ll show you a cloud of scattered disjunct particles. There is no such thing as a “non-quantum” object. Anything that contains atoms and their constituent parts? Is a quantum object. It’s a matter of scale.

Also I really doubt that is what he actually said but rather a shitty paraphrase. Our understanding, contrary or not, is not what makes make “human DNA functions somewhat unstable.” They are that way regardless of our understanding and they are so by nature. Differential breeding wouldn’t be possible if they weren’t and we’d all reproduce asexually.

Feel free to foam at the mouth now.

]]>By: Blouisehttp://jonathanturley.org/2013/02/23/evolution-religion-and-science/#comment-509436
Mon, 25 Feb 2013 22:08:30 +0000http://jonathanturley.org/?p=61036#comment-509436“Excuse me please, if this post was supposed to be about circumcision.” (Dredd to Mike S)

lol … now that was funny

]]>By: Gene H.http://jonathanturley.org/2013/02/23/evolution-religion-and-science/#comment-509428
Mon, 25 Feb 2013 21:57:42 +0000http://jonathanturley.org/?p=61036#comment-509428“Add the factor that microbe viruses provide the genes to humans with which to do the switching, and you can throw away grandpa’s biology book.”

“microbe viruses “? Making shit up again I see. There is no such thing as “microbe viruses”. There are microbes and there are viruses and they aren’t even close to the same thing. Also, you apparently you can’t distinguish between natural and engineered systems. Your assertion that viruses “provide the genes to humans with which to do the switching” shows a complete and utter lack of understanding of how homologous recombination works both in nature and as a process harnessed in the lab for gene splicing. The “viral genes” don’t determine how homologous recombination works in the sense you seem to think. That is determined by various enzymes and how they repair gene breaks and how the gene broke in the first place (a single strand versus a double strand break) combined with the how the enzyme in question resects the damaged/cut gene. How these cut ends are resected by said enzymes determines whether there is genetic crossover or not. If the enzyme creates the right kind of structure for bonding? Crossover. If not? None. It is the enzymes that provide the mechanism for switching. In the lab, it’s human selected genes that make the cells back into totipotent cells. In nature, it’s random chance depending upon which enzymes and genes happen to lurking about the gene break.

It’s not the “viral genes”.

You just don’t get the basics.

That’s why you keep quoting stuff you don’t understand, conflate it into something it isn’t, and I hang you with it. It really is a shame you read so much biology and have garnered such a poor grasp of the subject. But suppose this just proves that even the autodidactic can have bad teachers.

The two greatest myths about global warming communications are 1) constant repetition of doomsday messages has been a major, ongoing strategy and 2) that strategy doesn’t work and indeed is actually counterproductive!
…
These myths are so deeply ingrained in the mainstream media that such messaging, when it is tried, is routinely attacked and denounced …
You’d think it would be pretty obvious that the public is not going to be concerned about an issue unless one explains why they should be concerned about an issue.

Especially in the sense that stem cells go into and out of a “magic state” more regularly than previously thought … while morphing into human brain cells (Stem Cell Malfunction A Quantum Toxin Source?). Add the factor that microbe viruses provide the genes to humans with which to do the switching, and you can throw away grandpa’s biology book.

]]>By: lottakatzhttp://jonathanturley.org/2013/02/23/evolution-religion-and-science/#comment-509403
Mon, 25 Feb 2013 21:05:24 +0000http://jonathanturley.org/?p=61036#comment-509403ID, I recall 5 years and a scosh ago first coming to this site and finding threads that were a mini-education in some aspect of the law with citations and argument worthy of any courtroom or brief. There were also a lot of recipes and more discussion about food and vacations than one might imagine. I think the technical arguments have lessened somewhat but so have the recipes. There’s more politics/economics now and there seems to be a wider base of specialized knowledge present to draw upon. Many posters have also moved on. The number of posting (declared) females is up by a good 250-300% off and on.

Things change. An open-door policy invites change, the blawg is a dynamic system due to that. I wonder now and then if some of the long-time posters think the difference is positive or negative. I’ve always found the blawg and the commenters interesting so while I may lurk for various personal reasons I tend to return when I am able. If you stick around you will see more change than you might imagine.

Regarding your specific comment about my posting, I post what I like and most of it is personal opinion or ad hominem over time. I have very little in the way of professional training to bring to bear.

]]>By: Mike Spindellhttp://jonathanturley.org/2013/02/23/evolution-religion-and-science/#comment-509393
Mon, 25 Feb 2013 20:25:20 +0000http://jonathanturley.org/?p=61036#comment-509393“Thus, in the end, I remain the only one responsible for the belief system I have chosen and have no one to blame or thank but myself.”

Blouise,

This is as it should be, but so few want to take responsibility for themselves. Hence the two seemingly dichotomous pharases:

“The Devil made me do it.”

“God commanded me to do it.”

All variations on the same theme.

BTW: You are one hell of a tough Scrabble player.

]]>By: Mike Spindellhttp://jonathanturley.org/2013/02/23/evolution-religion-and-science/#comment-509390
Mon, 25 Feb 2013 20:20:26 +0000http://jonathanturley.org/?p=61036#comment-509390“You were singing another tune further up thread complaing about something which no one had understood, and also deploring the many kidnapping of your threads meaning and its purpose.”

“You then retired, claiming that a blogger had no special rights to steer the comments made (even if they appear to be a kidnapping of it?), and that it was only for the blogger to watch passively.”

“Shall we go back to worshipping MikeS? He is a treasure of great value, but no ambitions to be a politician and certainly not God. He has feet of clay, just as we do, admits to crying easily (wish I could, but I would never stop if I did), and has his life to cherish. So do we our own rightfully so.”

ID707,

All of your statements about me above are true, save for the idolatry part, because I certainly have feet of clay. Now what do you, who knows Gestalt Philosophy and Berne’s Transactional analysis so well (factual statement, not snark) make of those seeming inconsistencies? Let me add that my therapist and the people who trained me, felt I was the best patient to work in Gestalt that they had ever seen. Further that Gestalt Philosophy informs my life. So how come my actions seems so inconsistent? Think about it before shooting from the hip as is your wont.

Let me further add that none of the comments I’ve made on this thread were directed at you negatively, since I feel affection for the you that presents himself on this blog. In a real gunfight those that shoot from the hip usually got shot.

]]>By: Mike Spindellhttp://jonathanturley.org/2013/02/23/evolution-religion-and-science/#comment-509382
Mon, 25 Feb 2013 19:59:32 +0000http://jonathanturley.org/?p=61036#comment-509382“Now I get it MikeS. You were just showing me what my sniping on bits of others cómments has fór effect.”

ID707,

If you were a gunfighter you’d be too quick on the draw. Accuracy trumps speed every time. :)

Provocative. Kidding, The real purpose of showing the importance of separation of Church and State……..

You were singing another tune further up thread complaing about something which no one had understood, and also deploring the many kidnapping of your threads meaning and its purpose.

I remained silent, but you received considerable number of comments, to put it politely, which disagreed as to the purpose of the thread. Basis for their claim was the title as one piece supporting their views.

You then retired, claiming that a blogger had no special rights to steer the comments made (even if they appear to be a kidnapping of it?), and that it was only for the blogger to watch passively.

(Some mention of correcting misinterpretations was I believe not included) Remarkably few opportunities were offered to meet such incorrect ideas/interpretations etc.. I believe.
Could this be due to that few even discussed your blog per se, but had instead had established their own thread?

Now for a final diss. Not snarks, but facts.

In discussions you have been philosophical about your low number of commenters generally. 10, 15, 20, 35?
Now you have hit the jackpot and have been perhaps uneasy as to this event happening. I would in all likelihood have done the same or worse.

But I am not a GB and don’t want to be anything here except myself. Glad in my commonality and my uniqueness, Even my bacterial, viruses etc are different from Dredd’s. I am I, and that is sufficient. I have nothing to prove here anymore, as I did before. I enjoy the illusion that my words are sometimes read, but that is a common trait. Notice how many people talk IRL.
They stop listening when they start talking. That is akin to many other practices, but your impatience limits my exemplification (your being all here, not MikeS).

Perfect, I don’t aspire to the impossible. So I expect and can forgive myself for my mistakes. Can all say that here?
It ends here. Whew, I say.
My potatoes are long over-cooked by now.

]]>By: idealist707http://jonathanturley.org/2013/02/23/evolution-religion-and-science/#comment-509366
Mon, 25 Feb 2013 19:18:20 +0000http://jonathanturley.org/?p=61036#comment-509366Just to show that my comment sentence was truncated and soundbited, I will re-post it in its entirety. The sentence in question reads:
“Where have the old days gone when “serious” blogs were devoted to judicial matters (possible, but there has always been MikeS).”

Now I by adding MikeS as a serious producer of primarily social articles of serious value, then I assumed that the sarcasm was understood.
Particularly when the preceding sentences by me are read first.

My memory says that beside an occasional MikeS blog, the most was posted for laughs to use as a dart target, or cats who must be found, etc.

But the primary meat was meant for lawyers and the other judicial followers in different capacities (both in work life and here at JT’s)

I wonder what else seems foolish standing on its own. Kicks are oftest returned by kicks. Is that too cryptic?
===============================

idealist7071, February 25, 2013 at 10:19 am

What comments, what a blog this has become, where to begin?

I’ll take in brief separate posts.

Where have the old days gone when “serious” blogs were devoted to judicial matters (possible, but there has always been MikeS). The comments generated were, if not citing arcania, were cryptic, expressed in code only known the longtimers here, and seldom more than two lines long.

Compare these old days, with today’s blog, although this one is by MikeS, who as usual brings up deep subjects. MikeS may notice the number of comments generated. I would suggest that the numbers in great part are due to the import of the words in his title: Religion, Evolution, and Science.
Those simple, almost all encompassing words is open sesame to almost all commenters here. Only bots excepted. (Snark?)

At any rate, the numbers increase (generally over all blogs?).
The true from the heart content has increased. Comments are more personal.
Fewer commenters shout for “proof”, evidence, etc. in challenging these personal excerpts from the lives of others. Self-referential posts were as a rule condemned as unworthy of posting when I arrived. I have as you noticed have self-referencïal parts in most of my posts. Many if not most follow suit today.

Are most of you glad that you are now free to be humans in the first hand, and secondarily debaters dedicated to the “logical”?

Even “numinance” may be expounded upon in the blog NOW. So far have we come.

It pleases me. And that is sufficient reason to post this.

ÉND OF REPOSTED COMMENT

Again, you get kicked when someone feels pain at your words. But of course where it hurts is never revealed in the kickbacker’s comment.

And that is chicken, speaking colloqually from 1950 or thereabouts.
As for kidding, the double meaning escapes me, and I am not ashamed to admit it.

If I have to elucidate by expanding my comments above I will do so, but out of consideration of other sinners here, and of course in service of civility and the Professor, I won’t for now.
I prefer to refrain from naming names, practices and weaknesses. Not that that consideration has often been offered to me. And I do feel the blog has become better, for my “contribution” of self-referential personal comments related to the subject. Etc etc as said in previous comment to the herein cited.

Shall we go back to worshipping MikeS? He is a treasure of great value, but no ambitions to be a politician and certainly not God. He has feet of clay, just as we do, admits to crying easily (wish I could, but I would never stop if I did), and has his life to cherish. So do we our own rightfully so.

His esteem is for other things than we esteem occasionally, (but in all, I think we should keep him—-said in jest of course).

That which I love about separation of Church and State is that the State cannot tell me what to believe nor can it interfere with others trying to convince me what to believe. Thus, in the end, I remain the only one responsible for the belief system I have chosen and have no one to blame or thank but myself.

“If you buy the idea that we are not so much in the universe as the universe is in us – that sapient life is the universe trying to understand itself, the sense of the numinous is a driver behind our desire to understand. It’s mystery.”

Now that I can buy if it is framed in some of what lotta wrote.

I am not the least bit uncomfortable with the mystical even though I have no idea how it works. Perhaps it is the profession I was in for so many years. Ask any musician who works in the classics, my favorites were Vivaldi, Verdi, and good ol’ Wolfgangus, about floating away into the unknown … trusting it and taking your audience with you. There is no truthful way I can deny its existence nor its impact.

A belief in a deity is not necessary, in my opinion, though it is often the initial approach experienced by many. Thus was the truth I “sensed” in Bron’s statement.

Did you read the rest of my comment.? Cherry picking my bit of sarcasm meant as a teaser, and displaying it in your manner as a lonesome sound bite, leaves me pissed. Sound bites and cherry picking is bad.

Foul!!! Or was it intentionally meant to make an ass of me with my own words OK, admit it and we are quits.

Now I get it MikeS. You were just showing me what my sniping on bits of others cómments has fór effect. Yeah, agreed. No apologies needed. Except from me to you and others. Hard heads (or dumb ones) need hard knocks to understand.

]]>By: Bronhttp://jonathanturley.org/2013/02/23/evolution-religion-and-science/#comment-509303
Mon, 25 Feb 2013 17:10:00 +0000http://jonathanturley.org/?p=61036#comment-509303“You haven’t let me down and as you well know I predicted this comment in my blog.”

And that is why I did it. :)

]]>By: Mike Spindellhttp://jonathanturley.org/2013/02/23/evolution-religion-and-science/#comment-509269
Mon, 25 Feb 2013 15:57:24 +0000http://jonathanturley.org/?p=61036#comment-509269“My belief is that the connectivity you speak of is absolutely real, functional and comes to us over the entire length and breath of our evolutionary history.”

LK,

I agree with you and with the rest of your comment. My wife and I watched the entire “Through the Wormhole” series and it spun my thoughts in a similar direction. Also no need to apologize to me because this thread went off my conception of the tracks long ago and right now I’m just going with the flow. :)

The best laid plan………………etc.

]]>By: Mike Spindellhttp://jonathanturley.org/2013/02/23/evolution-religion-and-science/#comment-509264
Mon, 25 Feb 2013 15:52:21 +0000http://jonathanturley.org/?p=61036#comment-509264“Where have the old days gone when “serious” blogs were devoted to judicial matters”

ID707,

From the beginning of my time here years ago, Professor Turley both produced blogs of legal import, as well as social commentary and humor. Now underlying this particular guest blog, though unstated, is the very important legal matter in the US of separation of Church and State.

As for the intention of my title being provocative……..no kidding. :) “No kidding of course meant in the colloquial sense.

You haven’t let me down and as you well know I predicted this comment in my blog. That doesn’t mean I’ll respond to the erzatz wisdom of a terrible novelist, who had pretension of being a philosopher, but lacked the intellect. :)

I read your comment late last night, but four hours of Academy Award watching wore me out and so I’m replying today.

“As long as Harvard University, Washington University in St. Louis, and John Hopkins University maintain their billion dollar endowments, then the ‘specific subset of religion’ will not hinder the advancement of science”

I don’t agree. These “estimable” institutions are just as subject to intimidation and manipulation as any other. I graduated with a Masters Degree from Columbia University School of Social Work (CUSSW). Columbia is an Ivy League School with a very rich edowment. I regularly get the Social Work School’s magazine. When religous based funding became available via government programs CUSSW the magazine began to include articles extolling religious based programs, since that was a new area for Social Work to find funding. At the time of my graduation, two decades before this would have been considered an anathema. All these institutions are subject to wealth and power.

“With this being said, the title of this article or subject matter would have been more informative (and less demeaning to our religious followers) if it went along as follows: By introducing Creationism and/or Evolution in Missouri’s K-12’s Public Education System, will this improve it’s overall quality?”

If that was the case then it would be someone other than me writing this article. Is it not clear by my words that I consider what is euphemisticly called “intelligent design” (Creationism) ridiculous, even if one does’t think Evolutionary Theory is the be all and end all. The Earth is ot 10,000 years old and that has been proven. The creation story in Genesis is a metaphor and that can’t be denied, except by closing one’s mind. Where did the other humans mentioned in Genesis come from? Where were the wives for the sons of Adam come from? This teaching has no place in a public school system and indeed as Professor Tegmark’s study shows only religions making up but 11% of this country’s population don’t accept the evidence of science.

“Although we have historically modeled our public educational system after the private religious educational system, why are the private, religious students outperforming the students in most public education schools? Is it as one pastor stated: ‘historically, the more we take God out of the classroom, the worst our public school system has become?”

I’m not sure what metric you use to compare religious education to public education, but accepting that for the sake of argument i think it proves nothing. The overwhelmig majority of children going to religious schools have more income, in comparison to those going to public schools. Most of these parent could afford to pay the tuition for a private school. Since the 70’s the public school system in America has been consistently short-changed and those successful schools within it are skewed to wealthy neighborhoods. Your comparison, if the metrics are valid, is an apples to oranges situation.

“But I also want to add that Religion (i.e. Christianity, for sake of discussion) does this country a great service: It provides another means of socially controlling the ‘bewildered masses.” We need Religion in America (since you can do almost anything, and only get a slap on the wrist for it: speaking about America’s criminal justice system). Think about how many potential murders, serial rapists or god knows what other crimes some people may do or continue to do if Religion wasn’t controlling them”

Your premise is entirely untrue and unprovable. The only people who get a “slap on the wrist from the criminal justice system” are the rich and powerful. The proof of this is that the Uited States has by far the highest rate of incarceration in the world. Yes let us think about the “serial rapist” pedophiles within the Catholic Church worldwide. The religion of many ordained priests did not prevent them from committing heinous crimes. You are making a statement in talking about crime prevention that has no basis in fact.

“Yes, I do believe in the overarching theme of Joseph Conrad’s novel “Heart of Darkness” about people: ‘darkness potentially inherent in all human hearts”

I’m not sure I accept that either, but even if true, that doesn’t prove your case. If there is the potential for darkness in every human heart doesn’t mean religion holds people back from the “darkness. In world history religion has more frequently played a destructive role, than a healing one.
Just a short look explains that:

The spread of Islam “by the sword”.
The Crusades
The Albigensian Heresy
The Inquisition
The Protestant Reformation and its attacks on heresy.
The frequent Pogroms that Jews experienced all over Europe.
The sanctification of slavery by Southern Baptists
The war in Bosnia

That is only a “sampler” of the evil done in the name of God. Now in truth I do believe that the evil done in Jesus name had nothing to do with Jesus teachings and everything to do with people who perverted his teachings for their own will to power. However, that is the difference between prophets wanting to bring healing to humans ad those who use the prophet’s teachings to their ow advantage. Even The Buddha, whose message was meant to alleviate human suffering had followers centuries later who slaughtered eachother over points of doctrine. To bring it to current times perhaps you can explain to me how the message of Jesus in the Gospels has tranferred him into being a warlike, intolerant Conservative in America, who takes the side of wealth?

]]>By: idealist707http://jonathanturley.org/2013/02/23/evolution-religion-and-science/#comment-509253
Mon, 25 Feb 2013 15:37:47 +0000http://jonathanturley.org/?p=61036#comment-509253Eric Berne once wrote: (paraphrased from memory). Each day you know a friend the more you know about him, and how to say hello to him.
You will get closer to knowing him over time, but never completely.
Want more old friends? Get some new ones, and they will become old ones.
=============

Now LottaKatz is not a friend, nor even a good prospect for becoming one. Posts are made, mostlt cryptic. Not revealing private issues very much and often. Helpful when inclined and not irritated. Dissing when such is felt necessary.

So why mention LottaKatz?

In my relatively short time here, this is an open, deeply personal LottaKatz who speaks to us today. I welcome that for my sake, LottaKatz’ sake, and for the sake of others here, who would at times wish to speak on personal matters, which relate to the bigger world we live in.

]]>By: idealist707http://jonathanturley.org/2013/02/23/evolution-religion-and-science/#comment-509244
Mon, 25 Feb 2013 15:19:48 +0000http://jonathanturley.org/?p=61036#comment-509244What comments, what a blog this has become, where to begin?

I’ll take in brief separate posts.

Where have the old days gone when “serious” blogs were devoted to judicial matters (possible, but there has always been MikeS). The comments generated were, if not citing arcania, were cryptic, expressed in code only known the longtimers here, and seldom more than two lines long.

Compare these old days, with today’s blog, although this one is by MikeS, who as usual brings up deep subjects. MikeS may notice the number of comments generated. I would suggest that the numbers in great part are due to the import of the words in his title: Religion, Evolution, and Science.
Those simple, almost all encompassing words is open sesame to almost all commenters here. Only bots excepted. (Snark?)

At any rate, the numbers increase (generally over all blogs?).
The true from the heart content has increased. Comments are more personal.
Fewer commenters shout for “proof”, evidence, etc. in challenging these personal excerpts from the lives of others. Self-referential posts were as a rule condemned as unworthy of posting when I arrived. I have as you noticed have self-referencïal parts in most of my posts. Many if not most follow suit today.

Are most of you glad that you are now free to be humans in the first hand, and secondarily debaters dedicated to the “logical”?

Even “numinance” may be expounded upon in the blog NOW. So far have we come.